06-06-2003 20:07									#61
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Tolls ....We provided schooling in India to train the locals up to be civil servants...there was schooling in Africa as well, but it was always cut short. I mean, we were there for decades, and yet failed to build anything.

Well, the idea (as daft as it sounds now) was to train up civil servants in India and then send them to Africa!

I believe a certain Mohandas K Ghandi was involved as a participant, so it wasn't a complete waste of time. A lot of Indians were kicked out of Uganda during the Amin years.

	06-06-2003 20:11									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Cruddy:
Nigeria may have kept its borders, but not without bloodshed...Biafra.

I know about the Indian civil servants, but that just emphasises the problem. Put simply, racism played a massive part in it all. That whole area of southern africa was populated by some rather unpleasant people on our part, best summed up by Smith taking over in Rhodesia. There was no reason not to train up and use locals, but we didn't...

	06-06-2003 20:17									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Tolls Cruddy: Nigeria may have kept its borders, but not without bloodshed...Biafra. I know about the Indian civil servants, but that just emphasises the problem. Put simply, racism played a massive part in it all. That whole area of southern africa was populated by some rather unpleasant people on our part, best summed up by Smith taking over in Rhodesia. There was no reason not to train up and use locals, but we didn't...

Was this racism or simply cultural incompatability?

	06-06-2003 20:21									#64
	Tired of ads?

Oh...racism. You just need to read up on the activities of colonial administrators to see their attitude to the locals in africa. They were simply disregarded.

	06-06-2003 20:27									#65
	Increase Your PM Length

That just seems strange to me. Being from the US South racism has always been a topic you hear a lot about. I was under the impression that the reason that UK didn't support the South in the US Civil War was due to the fact that the South maintained slaves. This led me to believe that racism was not a major problem among UK government. I can see that the African culture being so drastically different would cause problems for a colonizing power, but to learn that underdevelopment was based mainly on race is very disappointing. One can only imagine Africa now if this had not been the case.

	06-06-2003 20:29									#66
	Suffering from ads?

We didn't stop using slaves much before you. We were a big part of the slave transport triangle.

	06-06-2003 20:31									#67
	Put an end to popups!

So, Serb denies that without British/American help, Russia would have been crushed by the Germans in WWI, but then says that the reason Germany was able to actually defeat Russia in WWI and seize so much land was due to an internal revolution in Russia which had been underway for 12 years?

And this makes sense how?

	06-06-2003 20:36									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The day people who post here have to start making sense is the day I leave!

	06-06-2003 20:38									#69
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by PLATO1003 That just seems strange to me. Being from the US South racism has always been a topic you hear a lot about. I was under the impression that the reason that UK didn't support the South in the US Civil War was due to the fact that the South maintained slaves. This led me to believe that racism was not a major problem among UK government. I can see that the African culture being so drastically different would cause problems for a colonizing power, but to learn that underdevelopment was based mainly on race is very disappointing. One can only imagine Africa now if this had not been the case.

First, racism and slavery aren't the same thing. It's easy to make a definite look at slavery as an institution and say "Yep, that's wrong." Racism is a more slippery thing, as what is considered racist today wasn't back then.

Second, many among the British elite, especially the industrialists who wanted Southern goods, were eager to have the UK help the Confederacy. It was the opinion of the masses, however, that kept the British out, ultimately. Again, this was due to the obviousness of Southern racist institutions and the lingering memory among the British of indentured servitude.

In Africa and India, they "got away" with institutionalized racism because it was simply far less obvious to those in mainland Britain what was going on, and there was the continual notion that colonialism was for the good of such "savages."

	06-06-2003 20:46									#70
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think the Brits though of supporting the South in the Civil War because, 1. It was Britiains main source of cotton at the time, 2. Southerners and the land-owners in parliment understood each other better, and 3., Breaking up the US would have been A OK. BUt the fact is that slave ownership was always a huge black mark against the South in British public opinion.And once Egyptian cotton came into the pipeline, the economic reasons were secondary.

As for Colonialism: at most, what it did was increase the speed by which modernity reached sub-saharan africa and India, plus the little outposts in Asia. But the same can be said of all European colonies. I don;t see how the Brtis did better in Africa than say the French or the Germans (Tanzania did fine being German, Cameroon, Senegal, so forth and so on), but certainly they did better than the Belgians and Portugese. But there is a difference between colonies which are just a small bunch of overlords sitting on top of a local system they manipulated and colonies in the old Roman sense, of shipping your own citizens there in large numbers. The big success stories of the British empire are the latter part colonies, not the former ones.

As for the WW2 notion. US help was critical, but the Soviets would have fought on otherwise (was the share of British output vs US aid any different by the end of the war?) and Serb is correct in pointing out that from june 1941 to at least late 1944 the Soviets were the ones actually fighting 70-80% of the Wehrmacht. It is imposible and rather foolish to try to belittle the soviet contribution.

	06-06-2003 20:49									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov First, racism and slavery aren't the same thing. It's easy to make a definite look at slavery as an institution and say "Yep, that's wrong." Racism is a more slippery thing, as what is considered racist today wasn't back then.

Yep. Slavery was abolished ON THE UK MAINLAND a long time before the ACW. HOWEVER, it flourished outside the UK because it was big business.

The backlash of this anti-slavery attitude was, strangely, more racism. "We don't keep slaves but we're damned if the savages are our equals".

Mind you, to much of the ruling class anyone with an income of less than £50 a year (that's 19 century pounds) was a savage and a non-human. Non-whites of course were below this level, "because they are non-white savages".

Racism wasn't questioned back then. It was seen as the truth, pure and evident. Today we have questions, debate, even on-line forums like Apolyton. Back then they had whips and guns to win the arguments.

	06-06-2003 20:52									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by GePap I think the Brits though of supporting the South in the Civil War because, 1. It was Britiains main source of cotton at the time, 2. Southerners and the land-owners in parliment understood each other better, and 3., Breaking up the US would have been A OK. BUt the fact is that slave ownership was always a huge black mark against the South in British public opinion.And once Egyptian cotton came into the pipeline, the economic reasons were secondary.

Intercepting UK packet mail ship on the high seas didn't exactly go down too well either

	06-06-2003 20:59									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Imperialism? Right/Wrong?

Clearly their is resentment towards Imperialistic ways due to cultural, spiritual, and political suppression... So, if the ends justify the means, than yes, perhaps it was wrong.

However, Imperial conquerers viewed themselves as those who gave to the "savages". "Enlightened" them of the more technological advanced (at least on an industrial level) ways of their worlds. They brought with them new sciences, technologies, medicines, and the like... So, in a way, no, it was right. For while the quality of cultural life may had taken a fall, the quantity of and within life increased.

Yet, to those who were conquered, they would rather have lived their peaceful lives as it was instead of the way it was brought on to them... Therefore, in order to judge right and wrong, I would have to say it was wrong mainly based on the ends justifing the means, and partially on the fact that the only real reason Britian was Imperialistic was to increase their power and attempted world domination.

Seems to me, that almost every place the Brits have touched with their Imperialistic rod became corrupt, or had huge problems because of which.

I also can see how one would say it just was, but in that light we will never learn from such actions. Actions which I fear my own country may be taking. I do not wish for the US to flex their muscle for Imperialistic ways. Yet, I want them to eliminate threats to American ways of life and to our national security. I don't think the Brits were threatened by most of the places they invaded. Same with Napolean, Hitler, the Huns, etc...

	06-06-2003 22:17									#74
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think it's highly rude to talk about the US when the question concerned the British Empire. Serb owes everyone here an apology and three months of not mentioning Mother Russia.

	06-06-2003 22:18									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

At least we didn't threadjack it with a discussion of the horrendous things perpetrated by the imperialism of Russia.

	06-06-2003 22:23									#76
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber Serb owes everyone here an apology and three months of not mentioning Mother Russia.

We'd be lucky to get 3 days, Sprayber.

	06-06-2003 22:26									#77
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tolls Cruddy: Nigeria may have kept its borders, but not without bloodshed...Biafra.

Oh s**t. As sick as it sounds I completely forgot about that. A big apology from me.

	06-06-2003 22:34									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I think the idea that only the British Empire is responsible for the problems in the middle east is highly flawed. The problems in that area of the world have existed for millenia.

The area is a strategic crossroad between east and west and thus been fought over many many times. Also factor in the crusades and yes the British Empire making a hash of the Palestine state/Israel issue.

Yus we f*cked up but no more than anyone else in that land it would seem.

	06-06-2003 22:38									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: I think the idea that only the British Empire is responsible for the problems in the middle east is highly flawed. The problems in that area of the world have existed for millenia.

But, no one wants to blame themselves. The problem is obviously the faults of the tribes that exist there... Thus, we should be blaming Abraham, right?

---

It seems that Imperialism has existed for many many years, not just with the Brithish empire. There seems to be a passing of the torch that occurs every so often. Is this a natural even, in so far that it is the nature of man, or is this some kind of cycle that can be stopped?

	06-06-2003 22:40									#80
	Rue Britania Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Long may she wane!

Last edited by chegitz guevara on 06-06-2003 at 22:49

	06-06-2003 23:17									#81
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Who's talking about WW2? I'm talking about WW1, you silly person. You and your Frenchie friends alone never had a chance against the German and Austrian might. The war would be over in 1915.

You mean, by the time the Brits actively entered the conflict ?

Without the US, the most likely outcome of WW1 would have been a stalemate in the West (maybe in slight disfavour of the Germans because their army was even more demoralized than the western ones), and a crushing of Austria-Hungary + Russia.

Without the Brits, the war would have been won by Germany, but France would have put up a serious fight, and the territory loss for France wouldn't have been too terrible. Actually, France would have lost because of inferior navy and too high mobility of German troops on sea.

	06-06-2003 23:28									#82
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor ... Actually, France would have lost because of inferior navy and too high mobility of German troops on sea.

I never realised they could walk on water.

	06-06-2003 23:31									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

at least you all agree that Germans have always been superior by nature. that's good.

	07-06-2003 01:02									#84
	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The British Empire Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Without the US, the most likely outcome of WW1 would have been a stalemate in the West (maybe in slight disfavour of the Germans because their army was even more demoralized than the western ones), and a crushing of Austria-Hungary + Russia.

That doesn't make sense. Even with U.S. involvement, Russia was defeated. So where do you get the crushing of Austria-Hungary from?

As for the West--demoralization was rampant on the Brit/French side as well. Many historians have speculated that without the U.S. reinforcements, the exhausted Anglo-Franco armies wouldn't have been able to put up too much of a fight. Germany's last big push of the war might have been effective in this light. It could at least have forced a far more favorable peace for her than what actually occured.

	07-06-2003 01:12									#85
	Increase Your PM Length

The US involvement actually made possible the allied offensive of 1918, as well as the Tanks.
The German army was demoralized, but unlike the French / British army, it was starving as well. Civilian Germany was unable to follow because of the embargo and the resulting shortages, and as such couldn't supply the army satisfactorily.

Had the US not been involved, the Western stalemate would have been as such in slight disfavour of Germany, nothing like the Versailles humiliation indeed.

- Had Britain not been involved, the Sea mastery of Germany would have made it win the war, because France had a miserable navy compared to the British or German ones, and most of France's resources were involved in supplying the ground troops. But the French prowess on land would have made the French defeat not as terrible as the 1870 or the 1940 ones. The preparation to war, and the willingness of killing Krauts was at its highest in WW1.

	07-06-2003 01:17									#86
	Increase Your PM Length

geez, you guys cant make connections

serbs threadjacking ought to at least suggest to you why the british empire was a good thing, a very good thing.

Do you really think that it the brits had not gone into India, or had gotten out at any time from 1815 to 1914, india would have been independent


India would have suffered the same fate as every other stan from the Caspian to the Pamirs - it would have become part of the Russian empire. As would Istanbul as well. And that empire might very well have survived, and perhaps dominated the globe. Imagine a world ruled by the iron fist of czarism. (not to mention the bigotry)

damned fine job, Brits. damned fine job.

	07-06-2003 01:22									#87
	Increase Your PM Length

and if the revolution had taken place in a bigger and mor einfluential Russia - socialism would have worked and the world be a peaceful, socially equal place

	07-06-2003 01:28									#88
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

communism

Stalin

	07-06-2003 01:28									#89
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion and if the revolution had taken place in a bigger and mor einfluential Russia - socialism would have worked and the world be a peaceful, socially equal place

for socialism to have worked - IE to have remained marxist, and not leninist - it would have had to have been a much more industrialized Russia.

In any case i cant see a revolution in russia in this timeline - since theres no world war 1, or at any rate a very different one. OTOH there might have been a marxist revolution somewhere else in europe, maybe Germany, but it would probably have been snuffed out by Czarist troops, after the model of 1848.

	07-06-2003 01:29									#90
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the Russian revolution had emerged before, think 1905

apart from that, low industrialization degree does hinder socialist efforts.